Autocatters and RDA-Lers,

Objects are not published.  But applying RDA literally one could have
for a rock?

264  1 $a[Universe] ;$b[God?],$c[10,000 B.C.?]* 
264  2 $aToronto, Ontario :$bEducational Media Inc.,$c2013.
and for an iPad?

264  1 $a[No place of publication] :$b[no publisher],$c[no date of
264  3 $aMarkham, Ontario :$bApple Canada,$c2013.

Seems to me a bit of common sense would have us enter the 264 2 and 3,
with no 264 1.

RDA needs to be revised for the description of unpublished objects,
particularly if we wish museums to consider its use, and we don't want
to seem ridiculous to to our patrons.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

*Too bad JSC lost their nerve and abandoned the faith neutral
B.C.E.and C.E., a;ong with other good ideas such as taking alternate
title out of title proper.

**I say "no place" rather than "not identified", because there is no
publisher to identify.  "Publisher" does not mean "manufacturer in
English, whatever the RDA definition may say.

Reply via email to